(delivering the Judgment of the Court): The appellants in this appeal were the first and second defendants in the Court below against whom a claim was made by the respondent/plaintiff for general and special damages for the injuries sustained by him as a result of a motor accident due to the alleged negligence of the first appellant in driving motor lorry No. PV 396 as servant or agent of the second appellant who was at all material times the owner of the said vehicle on May 23, 1980. At the material time, the respondent was driving motor car AAG 1117 which collided into the said lorry after the lorry had made a sudden 'U' turn in front of the car. The learned Judge found the lorry driver wholly to be blamed and liable for the accident. He awarded the following damages:

1. General damages for the injuries, pain and suffering and loss of amenities — $20,000 with 8% interest from date of service of writ.

2. Total loss of pre-trial earnings for 19 months at $800 p.m. = $15,200 with 4% interest from date of accident.

3. Partial loss (pre-trial) of earnings for 30 months at $500 p.m. = $18,000 with 4% interest from date of accident.

4. Future loss of earnings on 15 years' purchase at $500 p.m. = $62,300 with no interest.

5. Agreed special damages — for police report, specialist report etc. = $1,270 with 4% interest from date of accident.

Originally, the appeal was against the whole of the Judge's decision. However, at the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant proceeded only on the issue of quantum of damages and appeared to have abandoned the appeal against liability. He accepted the awards under paragraphs 1 and 2 above but disputed the awards at paragraphs 3 and 4. We allowed the appeal with costs here only and we now give our reasons therefor.

It was submitted that the sum of $18,000 awarded by the learned Judge for partial pre-trial loss of earnings for 30 months at the rate of $500 per month was excessive on the ground that there was evidence that the respondent went back to work in Sarawak for about eight months, and that before the accident he worked about ten months in a year. We note that for the award of $18,000 the period should be thirty-six months and not thirty months as intended. It is common ground that prior to the accident, the respondent was a tractor driver working for his father for about six years from the age of eighteen. He also worked for other employers and alleged that he was earning about $1,500 a month. In 1977, he went to work in Indonesia also as tractor driver and claimed that he was earning between M$2,000 and M$3,000 a month. He came back to Malaysia on a holiday and it was during that time that he met with the accident, as a result of which he received quite serious injuries. He was hospitalised for about 23 days and operated on at the General Hospital, Ipoh. The reports of the medical specialists who examined him were considered by the learned Judge. The respondent was unable to resume work due to the effects of the injuries he received until the time he went to Sarawak to work as a tractor driver. We are of the opinion from the facts and circumstances that the period of five months should be deducted from the thirty months since he worked only ten months a year and the sum of $300 is a fair and reasonable sum for monthly partial loss of income instead of $500 bearing in mind that his average monthly income according to his income tax returns was $800. The award of $18,000 under this head should be reduced to $7,500. We therefore set aside the former award and substitute it with the award of $7,500 with 4% interest as prayed.

The other dispute relates to future loss of earnings. The learned Judge awarded the sum of $62,300 according to the Annuity Table by allowing fifteen years' purchase basing on the age of the respondent being thirty-five at the date of the trial and accepting $500 as the average monthly earnings of the respondent. It was submitted tha